Impact of Institutional Expected Practice Guidelines on Oral and Long-acting Intravenous Antibiotic Use for Serious Bacterial Infections
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Expected practice interventions are a low resource antimicrobial stewardship strategy to standardize prescribing behavior by clinicians. An expected practice intervention to encourage use of oral and long-acting IV (PO/LAIV) antibiotics for serious infections was implemented at a US tertiary care hospital in November of 2022. Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre/post study to evaluate the effect of guideline release on a primary outcome of length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes of inpatient antibiotic days, 3-month readmission, PO/LAIV antibiotic use, microbiologic failure, and adverse drug events. We also assessed key factors associated with use of PO/LAIV therapy receipt. Results: = .03). On multivariable analysis, LOS did not differ (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.91; 95% CI, .74-1.13), nor did inpatient intravenous antibiotic days (aRR 0.95; 95% CI, .78-1.16). Post-implementation encounters had lower odds of 3-month all cause readmission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; 95% CI, .17-.77) and higher odds of PO/LAIV use at discharge (aOR 2.77; 95% CI, 1.28-5.99). Conclusions: Expected practice intervention implementation was associated with an increase in PO/LAIV therapy use and a reduction in readmission, supporting its role as a promising, low-resource antimicrobial stewardship strategy warranting further prospective evaluation.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Impact of Institutional Expected Practice Guidelines on Oral and Long-acting Intravenous Antibiotic Use for Serious Bacterial Infections
- Date Crossref
- 01/07/2026
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.